Second Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee

A second federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, ruling that federal immigration officials bypassed required rulemaking procedures before putting the charge into effect.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California issued the order Wednesday, September 30, blocking U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the State Department from implementing the fee while a lawsuit challenging the policy moves forward.

The ruling gives opponents of the fee a second victory in federal court. A Massachusetts judge struck down the same $100,000 charge in June in a separate lawsuit brought by 20 states, and a federal appeals court later refused to let the administration resume collecting it while that case is appealed.

Trump created the fee through a September 2025 presidential proclamation covering many new H-1B workers hired from outside the United States. Federal agencies later issued guidance explaining which petitions would require the payment, how employers could pay it, and how the policy would apply to workers entering the country.

Gilliam found that the agencies should have gone through the notice-and-comment process required by the Administrative Procedure Act before implementing those policies. Federal agencies generally must publish proposed rules, allow the public to respond, and consider those comments before adopting regulations.

His order applies to agency policies implementing the original proclamation and Trump's September extension of the $100,000 requirement.

A coalition of labor unions, employers and nonprofit organizations filed the lawsuit in October 2025. The plaintiffs include Global Nurse Force, a California-based company that recruits nurses for U.S. health care facilities.

They argue that Trump exceeded his authority under federal immigration law and that the agencies unlawfully implemented the payment without following federal administrative procedures. Gilliam granted their request to block enforcement while the case continues. He declined to certify a proposed class of employers affected by the policy.

H-1B visas allow U.S. employers to hire foreign workers for specialty occupations that generally require specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor’s degree. The program is widely used in technology, health care, engineering, and other professional fields.

Federal law generally provides 65,000 H-1B visas each year under the regular cap, with another 20,000 available to qualifying workers who earned advanced degrees from U.S. institutions.

Employers typically pay several thousand dollars in government charges for an H-1B petition, depending on the filing and employer. Trump’s proclamation added the $100,000 payment for many workers applying from outside the United States.

The administration has defended the policy as a measure intended to protect American workers and curb what it describes as abuse of the H-1B program. It relied on presidential authority under federal immigration law to restrict the entry of foreign nationals whose admission is deemed detrimental to U.S. interests.

The plaintiffs argue that authority does not permit the president to impose a $100,000 payment on employers without congressional authorization.

U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin in Massachusetts struck down the fee in June after reaching the policy through a separate challenge brought by California and 19 other states. Sorokin found that the administration exceeded its authority in imposing the payment and that the agencies' implementation of the policy violated federal law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the administration’s request to pause that ruling in July, keeping the $100,000 fee blocked while the appeal proceeds.

The Department of Homeland Security has since proposed a permanent H-1B fee of about $103,000 for many petitions subject to the annual visa cap. DHS published that proposal through the formal federal rulemaking process in August, allowing public comments before a final rule is issued.

The proposed fee has not taken effect.

A separate challenge brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also moving through the federal courts, while the administration continues its appeal of the Massachusetts ruling.